The Town of Carrboro v. Slack, 261 N.C. App. 525

Background

Andrew and Bethany Slack own the SW parcel; a gravel private road runs along their eastern boundary and has existed since at least the 1940s.
In 1965 the Slacks’ predecessors (Cardens) granted a 30-foot “perpetual easement” to third parties (Grady & Dryer and Watson) to access the Byrd Farm to the north; those grantees never owned the Byrd Farm.
A separate 1965 easement from the Church parcel to the Byrd Farm created a contiguous 60-foot right-of-way on paper if combined with the Cardens’ instrument.
In 2015 the Slacks re-graded the gravel road onto their property and began erecting a fence; plaintiffs (Town of Carrboro, Town of Chapel Hill, Orange County, and William Inman) sued claiming various easement rights.
The trial court granted summary judgment for all plaintiffs and enjoined the Slacks from moving or impeding the road; on appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed multiple easement theories.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an express easement appurtenant exists over the Slacks’ eastern 30-foot strip	The 1965 Cardens deed expressly states the easement “is appurtenant and runs with the land,” so it benefits the Byrd Farm (plaintiffs).	An easement appurtenant requires that the grantee be the owner of the dominant estate; grantees never owned Byrd Farm so the grant created only a personal easement in gross.	No express easement appurtenant; the 1965 grant was an easement in gross.
Whether an express easement by reservation was created in the Slacks’ chain of title	Deeds referencing the “private road” as a boundary should be read as reserving an easement benefiting the Byrd Farm.	Deed boundary descriptions alone do not reserve or except land from the conveyance; no reservation language exists.	No easement by reservation or exception.
Whether an implied public easement (dedication or by plat) or estoppel binds the Slacks	Recorded references to a private road, public discussion of access, permit entries, and reliance by plaintiffs support implied dedication/plat or estoppel creating easement rights.	No clear offer and acceptance by a public authority (dedication); no purchaser relied on a plat vis-à-vis the Slacks (plat theory); permissive use and equivocal conduct do not supply equitable estoppel.	No implied dedication, plat easement, or estoppel-based easement in favor of the municipalities.
Whether Inman obtained a prescriptive easement across the Slacks’ land	(Inman) His continuous, open, notorious, and maintenance-based use of the gravel road for 20+ years supports a prescriptive easement.	(Slacks) Use was permissive or insufficiently adverse to create prescription.	Summary judgment for Inman on prescriptive easement affirmed; use was open, notorious, continuous, and under claim of right for 20+ years.

Key Cases Cited

Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. North Main Constr., Ltd., 361 N.C. 85 (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
Brown v. Weaver-Rogers Assocs., Inc., 131 N.C. App. 120 (distinguishes easement appurtenant from easement in gross)
Shingleton v. State, 260 N.C. 451 (easement appurtenant is incident to dominant estate ownership)
Woodring v. Swieter, 180 N.C. App. 362 (cannot create easement appurtenant in transaction with a stranger to dominant estate)
Metcalf v. Black Dog Realty, LLC, 200 N.C. App. 619 (standards for implied dedication to public use)
Price v. Walker, 95 N.C. App. 712 (implied easement by plat arises when purchaser relies on plat at conveyance)
Delk v. Hill, 89 N.C. App. 83 (prescriptive/equitable principles when party expends labor in reliance on claimed easement)
Myers v. Clodfelter, 786 S.E.2d 777 (elements and rebuttable presumption regarding prescriptive easements)
Hundley v. Michael, 105 N.C. App. 432 (owner of servient estate may erect improvements so long as they do not unreasonably interfere with easement)
A. Perin Dev. Co., LLC v. Ty-Par Realty, Inc., 193 N.C. App. 450 (servient owner may not unilaterally relocate a recorded express easement)